NEWS

[SR5] House Rules

  • 416 Replies
  • 261084 Views

Top Dog

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
« Reply #270 on: <09-28-14/0805:25> »
So I have to admit, the whole "Defender unaware" thing bugged me as well. So I reread the rules.

The cover rules do state that a defendant in full cover "is considered unaware of the attack" (p197). But what does that do? The barrier rules don't specify that they loose their defense pool, they only refer to the unaware rules. And they state, quite clearly, that
Quote
If the defender is unaware of an incoming attack (he does not see the attacker, the attacker is behind him, or he is surprised), then no defense is possible. Treat the attack as a Success Test instead. This does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat (see Character Has Superior Position, p. 187).
(Emphasis mine)

So sure, the defender is unaware - but the penalty doesn't apply if the defender is in combat. The rule doesn't state "This doesn't apply in combat unless the defender is really unaware because of cover" - it just doesn't apply at all if the target is in cover. That does mean that the full cover thing only helps for people who don't expect to be attacked though, which is sort of weird (as they'd be unaware regardless). Still though, ignoring that line doesn't seem right to me. In fact, "defender doesn't see the attacker" is specifically referenced in the Defender Unaware-rules, which means it's also specifically overruled by the "does not apply to characters in combat" rule.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #271 on: <09-29-14/1109:16> »
Due to the reference to Superior position, though, it can be read as that you are assumed to be at 360-degree sight in combat, which means that if you can't see it coming at all it still won't apply. One reading could be that if you reasonably can expect an attack from a direction, you still get a defense test, but it's also quite easy to argue that if you cannot see the attack, you cannot avoid it either, even if you're in combat. Which would be an interesting debate subject in its own topic.

Also note that, as far as I recall and I don't have a pdf with me right now, the Cover rules are very clear on the Blind Fire vs Full Cover thing. So in full cover you are unaware at only Cover dice, so no defense normally. The "attacker behind you" doesn't apply, but you CAN still be unaware to the point of no defense test. But if you use a way to see the enemy, then that wouldn't be a problem, and you could still be behind 99% cover and get a defense test instead.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Top Dog

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
« Reply #272 on: <09-29-14/1304:27> »
Due to the reference to Superior position, though, it can be read as that you are assumed to be at 360-degree sight in combat, which means that if you can't see it coming at all it still won't apply. One reading could be that if you reasonably can expect an attack from a direction, you still get a defense test, but it's also quite easy to argue that if you cannot see the attack, you cannot avoid it either, even if you're in combat. Which would be an interesting debate subject in its own topic.
That's a... fairly big assumption. The Defender Unaware rule is clear, it says it doesn't apply in combat. Not if someone is behind him, not if he doesn't see him, and not if he is surprised (well, besides the initial surprise, of course) - all three are listed as examples of "defender unaware" and they as a whole are said to not apply if a character is already engaged in combat. Saying that that only applies to one of the three because of a reference that doesn't only refer to being behind is a stretch. Indeed, the "Superior Position" rule also mentions an advantage in perception as giving the bonus.

Quote
Also note that, as far as I recall and I don't have a pdf with me right now, the Cover rules are very clear on the Blind Fire vs Full Cover thing. So in full cover you are unaware at only Cover dice, so no defense normally. The "attacker behind you" doesn't apply, but you CAN still be unaware to the point of no defense test. But if you use a way to see the enemy, then that wouldn't be a problem, and you could still be behind 99% cover and get a defense test instead.
I checked and they are not clear on that point at all. The rules (on Barriers, Cover rules mention none of this) only refer back to the Defender Unaware rules - which state they don't apply to someone already engaged. There ís an example in there as well, but the example doesn't make it clear whether the victim is considered engaged in combat.

The Defender Unaware rule is simple. It states:
  • Sometimes defenders are unaware
  • That means no defense is possible
  • This does not apply to a character engaged in combat
There are three examples of "being unaware" listed. There is no difference listed between the three.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #273 on: <09-29-14/1511:32> »
That's a... fairly big assumption. The Defender Unaware rule is clear, it says it doesn't apply in combat.
It points at Superior Position after that. So the rather-strong implication there is that it doesn't get ignored at all times in combat, but that things as being in a poor position in combat would normally be Superior Position in melee instead, but unaware still applies in some situations. Otherwise we get the argument "I'm in combat so the invisible sniper at 1000m distance can't hit me", which is rather ridiculous. So it makes most sense that you simply count as 360-degree vision. Anyway, as I said, this is better discussed in its own topic.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #274 on: <09-30-14/0901:05> »
Back to normal House Rules, here's one I made:

Norse Tradition is Charisma-based, not Logic-based. The whole negotiating with Spirits makes Logic sound just plain weird to me, so I'm sticking to the SR4 style of "all Guardian-Spirit religions are Charisma".
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

The Wyrm Ouroboros

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4470
  • I Have Taken All Shadowrun To Be My Province
« Reply #275 on: <09-30-14/1455:54> »
I'd agree with the former, at the very least.  I haven't examined all the 'Guardian-spirit religions' in order to make the latter general blanket ruling, though.
Pananagutan & End/Line

Old As McBean, Twice As Mean
"Oh, gee - it's Go-Frag-Yourself-O'Clock."
New Wyrm!! Now with Twice the Bastard!!

Laés is ... I forget. -PiXeL01
Play the game. Don't try to win it.

Lucean

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1159
« Reply #276 on: <10-01-14/0452:57> »
Back to normal House Rules, here's one I made:

Norse Tradition is Charisma-based, not Logic-based. The whole negotiating with Spirits makes Logic sound just plain weird to me, so I'm sticking to the SR4 style of "all Guardian-Spirit religions are Charisma".
Zororastrianism was LOG-based in SR4 and had Guardian Spirits. They kept the attribute but lost the spirit type in the conversion, though.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #277 on: <10-01-14/0716:51> »
My bad, forgot to include 1 word, I meant "All Combat-Guardian-Spirit religions are Charisma".
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

incrdbil

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 185
« Reply #278 on: <10-02-14/0149:55> »
Ok, I'm contemplating a fair exchange rate  during character creation, for converting skill groups into skill points and vice versa. Sometimes I just don't want any skill group, and other times, I'd love to enhance an existing skill group with skill points.

Skill Points/ Skill Group Exchange.
1 Point Skill Group = 2 Skill Points (3 total levels of skill--3 at level 1)
2 Point Skill Group = 4 skill Points (6 total levels of skill--3 at level 2)
3 Point Group = 6 Skill Points (9 total levels of skill--3 at level 3)
4 Point Group = 8 Skill Points (12 total levels of skill--3 at level 4)
5 Point Group= 10 Skill Points (15 total levels of skill--3 at level 5)
6 Point Group = 12 Skill Points (18 total levels of skill--3 at level 6)

So, say example you had a Group 2 skill group, and there's no Group you want to take.  You trade it in for 4 individual skill points. You get more control, but less overall levels.

Or lets say you want to increase a level 2 group to level three, and you are out of Karma in generation. You look at the difference (6-4) and pay two skill points to boost the group rating.  or you just want to add a level three group--you  spend 6 skill points, and there you go.

I'm worried about the buying group skills. Should I deny that, and keep that only Karma at creation can boost groups, or just limit it, and  cap the ability to trade in skill points to boost skill groups to more than 3 points--either one group to three, or a total of thee points of increase to multiple skill groups.

I'd be happy for your input on the totals, the limits, and if you think the impact is too generous to players. Thanks.

The Wyrm Ouroboros

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4470
  • I Have Taken All Shadowrun To Be My Province
« Reply #279 on: <10-02-14/0204:41> »
What you might instead look at is the relative karma cost.  Most groups cost 6 karma (3 skills) for level 1 in all skills in the group, or 5 for the group, so you're looking at an overall exchange of 2.5 regular points for 1 group point.  Round how you wish.  ;)

Offhand, I'd only allow breaking apart, not combining - trading group skill points for regular skill points, and at the above rates.  Encourage those players to build groups.  Of course, I also allow purchasing a group to a point, and then breaking it to enhance one skill by several more, so ...
Pananagutan & End/Line

Old As McBean, Twice As Mean
"Oh, gee - it's Go-Frag-Yourself-O'Clock."
New Wyrm!! Now with Twice the Bastard!!

Laés is ... I forget. -PiXeL01
Play the game. Don't try to win it.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #280 on: <10-02-14/0738:24> »
A House Rule I made about the Nine Paths To Enlightenment:

First of all, of the two possible readings, we use the one following the first indication. Namely that the Gamemaster gets to pick the attribute. This means a player cannot grab an extremely-imbalanced pair so they easily succeed.

This leads us to the situation where this Ordeal will on average take 3+ months even with a balanced pair of attributes. Combined with the time required for the Arcana+Initiation test, this can lead to really massive durations. This leads us to the houserule:

The Nine Paths To Enlightenment Rite replaces the entire Initiation Rite, so no Arcana + Intuition test is required and karma is paid afterwards, not before the Ordeal is done.

This way, rather than players abusing stat imbalances for better odds, they are pushed to using balanced pairs first, yet don't spend twice the time on the Initiation. It also offers a way out for Adepts that don't have Arcana+Intuition at high values.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Mason

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1127
  • You don't know as many spells as I do, omae!
« Reply #281 on: <10-13-14/0326:35> »
Revised limits

Rename Physical Limit to Physical Conditioning Limit. This limit applies to NON COMBAT Physical rolls of any kind.
Keep Mental and Social and Astral
Add two new limits

In Astral Space, use the Astral limit to limit defense tests.
In the Matrix, use Firewall as the limit on Defense tests against any Matrix damage. Use Mental Limit for any damage to your Condition Tracks.

Accuracy Limit: (Agility x 2 plus Reaction plus Intuition)/3. This replaces all Accuracy stats for weapons. Any weapon or weaponless physical attack uses this limit. Weapons that have exceptionally low or exceptionally high Accuracy instead have a penalty or bonus to the roll itself; these weapons are inherently harder or easier to use, whether you are an expert or professional or amateur or some guy on the street.

Reaction Speed Limit: (Reactionx2 plus Intuition plus Agility)/3. Use this limit for all defensive tests to avoid physical attacks.

Top Dog

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
« Reply #282 on: <10-13-14/0348:16> »
Revised limits

Rename Physical Limit to Physical Conditioning Limit. This limit applies to NON COMBAT Physical rolls of any kind.
Keep Mental and Social and Astral
Add two new limits

In Astral Space, use the Astral limit to limit defense tests.
In the Matrix, use Firewall as the limit on Defense tests against any Matrix damage. Use Mental Limit for any damage to your Condition Tracks.

Accuracy Limit: (Agility x 2 plus Reaction plus Intuition)/3. This replaces all Accuracy stats for weapons. Any weapon or weaponless physical attack uses this limit. Weapons that have exceptionally low or exceptionally high Accuracy instead have a penalty or bonus to the roll itself; these weapons are inherently harder or easier to use, whether you are an expert or professional or amateur or some guy on the street.

Reaction Speed Limit: (Reactionx2 plus Intuition plus Agility)/3. Use this limit for all defensive tests to avoid physical attacks.
I like the Accuracy limit one myself. Why limit defense tests though? What would be the advantage of introducing those?

Lucean

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1159
« Reply #283 on: <10-13-14/0438:27> »
I'm with TopDog as I'd question the usefulness of applying a limit to defense tests.

Where would you set the value of especially high/low weapon accuracy? Would you still allow to add smart and the personalized grip? I ask because my Elven Streetsam would get his Yamaha Raiden to Accuracy 15, which for me would be a point to stop bothering about accuracy.

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #284 on: <10-13-14/0652:46> »
I have to disagree with the Accuracy Limit mechanics because of fluff reasons. No matter how good you are, unless you get a lucky shot (in other words: Push the Limit), there should be a limit to how well you can aim with really crappy guns. A penalty/bonus on your Accuracy Limit might be better, or perhaps go the other way around: lower the base Accuracy of weapons by 2, and add (Agility x2 + Reaction + Intuition)/6 to this value. That way, characters aren't automatically 'forced' into a certain attribute point distribution if they want to shoot well, but the one who do do get a bonus.